Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. That is how we began this week with the resolution of disapproval. But yesterday, they brought their self-styled foreign policy experts to Washington--Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Donald Trump-- and they said a resolution of disapproval is not enough. So today, Republicans have abandoned the only tool they had to stop this agreement--a resolution of disapproval; that is not even in this resolution--and they are off on a three-pronged approach to satisfy the most extreme views that prefer to use war as the first instrument instead of the last instrument. We have a choice in this Congress, and it is the choice of using the strong power of America, with verification, to prevent this program rather than calling on more military families to sacrifice for an unnecessary endeavor.

Mr. DOGGETT. Almost every observer, even the host of candidates seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, recognize that President Bush's invasion of Iraq was a foreign policy disaster for which so many military families are continuing to pay a high price. And American taxpayers will ultimately pay over a trillion dollars for that failure, spurred on by some of the speeches like the one we just heard. So we look next door to Baghdad, at Tehran, and we see a despicable government there, just as there was one in Baghdad. We have ample intelligence evidence that that despicable government was pursuing a nuclear weapon program that is unacceptable to us. And we try to learn: Is there a way for America to use its other power, its diplomatic power, to stop that? Because we know our use of military power did not accomplish positive foreign policy objectives by itself in a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq. We found an approach that, in fact, had strong bipartisan support-- imposing strong economic sanctions on the Iranians. It didn't work so well originally, the first time that I and almost everyone else in this House voted for it, because America couldn't go-it-alone any more than it could be successful in a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq. But when we brought the rest of the world along, including some people that have been our adversaries, like Russia and China, to join in this sanctions regime, it finally forced Iran to the table to begin to deal with the critical elements of this nuclear weapon program. Step by step, through very hard negotiations, by bringing the rest of the world along to force those economic sanctions on Iran--all of which I supported--they began to move forward on trying to resolve this issue through diplomacy, through acting that way, rather than bombing first and asking questions later, as some of these folks have advocated. At every step in that process, as we approached an interim agreement, we had an ``object first, read later'' approach from those who are pushing this rule. The interim agreement was announced. They rejected it that night before they had even read it. It proved that their objections were totally unfounded: We gained more in terms of intelligence; we came to understand better the Iranian program; and we put a stop to it in that interim agreement. Our families are safer today because that agreement was adopted. And we come along to about March of this year, and the same folks that are advocating this rule were out here telling us there was one thing this Congress had to do: It had to have the power to disapprove this agreement if it did not feel the final agreement met the objectives.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Republican self-styled experts like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Donald Trump condemning an agreement to decrease the nuclear threat is hardly new. One Republican Presidential candidate blasted a ``nuclear Munich.'' The National Review denounced a ``suicide pact.'' The Conservative Caucus founder derided our President as a ``useful idiot'' and a ``weak man.'' Old George Will lamented the ``cult of arms control.'' Sharp words for a President who is negotiating a nuclear agreement with an untrustworthy, terrorist-promoting regime that is bent on destroying America. Yet these shrill Republican attacks were not against President Obama, rather they were against President Ronald Reagan for agreeing with the Soviets to limit nuclear missiles. What the bomb-first, rejectionist crowd lacks in understanding and creativity they make up for here today in fatal consistency. Those who think the only good deal with Iran is a dead deal over nuclear weapons are only endangering our families. This week, I believe that reason will prevail and the President will be sustained, and our families will be all the safer for it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If they are so committed to supporting local law enforcement, eliminating funding for the COPS program is hardly the way to do it. We ought to be putting our dollars and our support and our immigration laws in conformity with the law enforcement experts across America and protect our families. Reject this bad bill, and then do something substantive to back our law enforcement officials.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Donald Trump wing of the Republican Party is clearly ascendant here today. It is the dominant thinking among House Republicans. This is the same crowd that, just back in February, threatened the funding for Homeland Security because they were so eager to deport our DREAMers--young people who came here as children, who have cleared a criminal background check, who paid a fee and are already contributing to America--because whenever they are in doubt on immigration, they fade to the extreme right. These are the same Members of Congress who have even gone to court to sue the President of the United States when he prioritized the deportation of criminals over immigrant families; and these are the same Republicans who were so fearful of a sane discussion here, and this Congress, this House, is never a sanctuary of sanity when it comes to immigration. But they refuse to bring to the House floor a bipartisan bill unanimously approved in the Homeland Security Committee to deal with border security. If that weren't bad enough, they came back this year with a totally partisan border security bill, and they have been afraid to bring it to the floor because they do not want a reasoned discussion of immigration in this House of Representatives. Unfortunately, this Congress is also never a sanctuary from partisan political stunts designed to capitalize on the latest tragedy, like the tragedy that occurred in San Francisco. This bill is not about grabbing criminals; it is about grabbing headlines. It is not about a thoughtful debate of the best immigration and law enforcement policies for our country; it is about scoring political points. It does so by rejecting the expert opinion of sheriffs and police chiefs and law enforcement experts and organizations and local mayors and leaders in the municipal level across America who say that, to fight crime effectively, they need to win the trust of all of the communities that they serve. This bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations, by municipal government organizations. I saw at the top of the list of those law enforcement organizations the police chief of my hometown, who works with community policing to make our communities safe. Some localities believe that they can better enforce the law, better keep our communities safe, if an undocumented person who is a witness or a victim of crime is involved with them and reporting those crimes and helping enforce the law. If I have to choose between Donald Trump and his extreme attitudes embodied by colleagues here in this House today and my local law enforcement about how to protect my family, all of our families, I choose law enforcement. Let's reject this bad bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in the Great Seal of the United States, the eagle clutches arrows and an olive branch. While today's Iran agreement puts the olive branch out first, the arrows remain firmly in our grasp. The safety of all our families in the United States, in Israel, and elsewhere, is advanced by pursuing a verifiable, enforceable, diplomatic solution. Refusing to be frozen by fear or pushed into conflict by those who are just campaigning or who are campaigning for war, the President recognizes diplomacy as our greatest strength. So many of those who loudly renounced this deal before they have even read it also loudly supported the stunning historic mistake of a go-it- alone invasion of Iraq. No choice is without risk, but strong inspections and verification are the best path to peace and security for all of our families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when he first signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson greatly advanced both education and civil rights. Now, here, 50 years later, the need for Federal support for our schools remains very real, but Republicans celebrate the anniversary by effectively repealing the civil rights portion, Title I, of this act. In February, Republicans began consideration of this bill and then suspended it because so many of their Members did not think it was extreme enough in cutting aid to our schools. Since then, the Senate has come together in a bipartisan, though lacking, approach, but a better approach that recognizes the need for civil rights and public education. Just as it did previously on immigration reform, the House has rejected that bipartisan approach and has jumped off the right end with a more extreme antieducation attitude. In a few weeks, bright-faced young schoolchildren will put on their backpacks and head off to school. As their number increases, this bill actually cuts the purchasing power available to our schools to meet those growing needs. Most importantly, Republicans would encourage the States to divert aid from the schools with the greatest need and to actually use Federal dollars to replace what the States are already spending on education. Not only does the bill shortchange our schools and our students, it also eliminates dedicated funding for important programs like STEM-- science, technology, engineering, and math education. These STEM skills are driving innovation. It is silent on support for our youngest Americans, as schools across the country recognize that brain research supports having pre-K through 12 education. We need not only accountability but funding. This bill should be rejected. We cannot shut the door on these students.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in Washington we never seem to lack for self-certified smart people. They are the folks who know what is best for you and your family. While they, today, are insisting on railroading through this fast- track trade deal--and they say it is so sweet for working families--is it so unreasonable to ask: What do the workers think about this bill? While the environmental provisions have been secreted away from the public, we do know that USTR does not believe in environmental law enforcement. Is it unreasonable to stop and ask: What do those who advocate for clean water and clean air and conservation of our resources think about this trade deal? I believe they support fair trade. They recognize that it raises all boats, but unfair trade sinks too many of them. They are capsized by competing with those who pay an average minimum wage of 60 cents an hour and whose only worker organization is the Communist Party in Vietnam. I believe our workers deserve respect. This bill asks American businesses to go out and compete with countries that mistreat their workers, that pollute their air and water and destroy their natural resources, and that deflate or adjust their currency, manipulating it in ways that are unfair. Railroading this bill through today will deny any opportunity, which we have struggled so long for so many months to try to achieve to make this a better right-track bill. The fast-trackers have rejected every constructive improvement that we have offered to this measure. And all of us here in Congress have to concede we know less about what is in this trade bill than the Vietnamese Politburo, than the Malaysian Government that has countenanced sex trafficking. We need an open, fair process to advance real trade opportunities for all families. Reject this fast track.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``Asleep at the Wheel'' is a great Texas swing band, but it is a horrible philosophy for trade law enforcement. Reject this rule; help us get a better trade policy; protect American families; and advance our economy. We can do better than this by rejecting this rule.

Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DOGGETT. First, we were all on the fast track, then the slow track with postponement into July, and now we are back on rush-hour scheduling, being told that fast track, which has been mangled in the meantime with new changes, has to be approved by high noon today. Railroading this bill through now will deny any opportunity to ensure that our trade policy gets on the right track. The fast-trackers have rejected every constructive improvement for a better trade measure that we have advanced. And even these fast-trackers, if they are really candid with the American people, would concede there is not a Member of this Congress who knows what is in this agreement to the extent that the Vietnamese Politburo does. Because so much of it has been secreted, we do not have one word that has been made public or accessible to us about how it is that Vietnam will enforce provisions to ensure greater worker freedom and opportunity instead of being part of a race to the bottom. What we do know about this fast-track agreement from a recent Canadian ruling, Bilcon v. Canada, is that corporate panels will be empowered to charge taxpayers millions of dollars for the privilege of maintaining public health and safety laws. The language to which my colleague from Texas has referred about preserving American laws is really meaningless because, yes, they are preserved, but when your city or your State acts to protect you, foreign corporations are accorded more rights than American businesses, and they can demand millions for keeping our laws in place. What we do know is that, since last week, this railroad has picked up some mighty unsavory characters. The irony is that on the very day Pope Francis is formally releasing his encyclical on global warming, this railroad has picked up a troubling new provision that would deny any opportunity to address the greatest environmental challenge that our world faces. Even Trans-Pacific Partnership supporters concede that it looks like a charter for corporate America rather than a high-level trade agreement. The Financial Times said, ``In too many aspects, it looks like a charter for corporate America.'' We learn, I think, more from USTR's past failures than from its current promises. USTR has never in its history successfully challenged worker or environmental abuses by any of our foreign trading partners. Usually the reason that USTR fails is that it doesn't really try. It doesn't seem to have a belief in law enforcement when it comes to worker and environmental abuse. In Guatemala, it took it eight years to even bring a dispute. In Honduras, it took nearly four years to issue another bureaucratic report. In Peru, we cannot get the audit that USTR was responsible for obtaining.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry: In the underlying bill, is there anything to prevent taxpayers from having to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of enforcing the very laws that the gentleman from Texas says this agreement would preserve, any local ordinance, any State agreement like happened in Canada recently, that the taxpayers end up having to pay the bill for simply enforcing existing law?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT. Was the gentleman present in the Rules Committee when every single constructive improvement to this fast-track bill was rejected by the Rules Committee--not with your vote, of course--but a majority of the Rules Committee said ``no'' to telling the Members of this Congress as much about this deal as the Vietnamese Politburo already knows, saying ``no'' to at least meeting the standards on the environment that the Bush administration agreed to, saying ``no'' to putting the foreign corporations on the same level as our American corporations and businesses so that foreign corporations wouldn't have an advantage to come in and attack health, safety, and environmental rules that might be established by the Congress or the State of Florida or a city like San Antonio or Austin? Because under this fast-track bill, we are headed toward jeopardizing those rules, those State laws, and those Federal laws that deal with the needs of the American family and letting these foreign corporations circumvent them as they did in Canada, recently, to demand millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a decision locally to just prevent the expansion of a quarry. We can't have that happen. But the Rules Committee would not allow us to address those problems.

Mr. DOGGETT. You served both on the Intelligence Committee and on the Rules Committee. There is reason to authorize intelligence, but am I correct it has nothing to do with this sneak attack to put in a postponement that has never been done in American history, where never has anyone sought to delay for 6 weeks the consideration of this bill that we are doing today; isn't that correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. And understand what that means. Understand that they are looking for the ideal time--morning, noon, or night--to muscle through a broken trade policy that a majority of this House and of the American people do not want. This rule provides that the Speaker at any time of day can come with no notice, no debate, and say, we are voting to send this bill to the President's desk. What really needs adjusting is not trade assistance but the no- compromise, no-amendment attitude on trade that gives us broken trade policies. This vote wouldn't be so close if this process hadn't been so closed. Reject this rule. Vote for democracy. Don't change the precedents of the House. Don't let this be muscled through.

Mr. DOGGETT. Does this rule provide any notice to Members of the House, or can this be entirely a surprise attack? Can they come out here on the floor at any time, perhaps when the floor is as empty as it is now, and give no notice to the Members of the House that they are about to move to send this bill to the President's desk, have absolutely no debate on that rule, but then have a vote here, perhaps a day when some Members are out on important business in their district, basically picking the best time because they are so desperate to force through a bill that they know a majority of this House does not support and that the American people don't support because it will just foist off on us a broken, failed trade policy that does not respect the interests of the American people? Is that what is happening here?

Mr. DOGGETT. Friday, this House sent a strong message to the Fast- Trackers: Not so fast. Forty-eight hours ago, Republican leaders were telling the world that, at this moment, we would be voting to approve Fast Track; but now, the Fast-Trackers have become backtrackers, pushing back the vote. The only reason that they seek this postponement in this rule of up to 6 weeks is that they do not have the votes to approve Fast Track today, and the only way they can get those votes today is to use this strange shenanigan of connecting it and cloaking it in a rule for the authorization of our intelligence agencies. After Friday's Fast Track vote, one official said those who ``vote against this Trade Adjustment Assistance are adding their names to the death certificate for [it].'' Well, let's play it straight for a change. TAA is not authorized now. It expired last year. Its future depends, not upon this authorization, but upon an adequate level of funding. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, and many more have not been authorized for years, but they continue to operate perfectly well, based upon appropriated funds. This TAA argument is phony. Really, it doesn't take much intelligence to see what is happening here. These Fast-Trackers are desperate, and this postponement vote for this extent, of this nature, is unprecedented in the history of this Congress. It has never happened before in American history that someone has asked to postpone a vote for up to 6 weeks.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some have called Trade Adjustment Assistance ``burial insurance'' since it delivers limited help after a job is dead and buried. At a time when Fast Trackers are claiming that they will include over half of the world's economy, we need a TAA that is funded for more workers at risk of job loss. Unfortunately, this particular TAA proposal is really short for ``Taking Away Assistance.'' It includes substantially less funding than the Administration has said was essential to protecting those who lose their jobs through expanded trade. Further, this TAA fails to restore coverage to thousands whose jobs may be exported. In a very contrived process this morning, designed to obscure what is really happening and to remove accountability from Members of this House, desperate Fast Trackers and fast talkers have split up the Senate bill into two pieces--two votes--before they put it back together in exactly the same form it was when it first got to the House. And along the way, they have a self-executing rule so that it appears that Members are not voting to do what they are doing. The first vote we take today at the end of this debate is on TAA. Vote ``no.'' Your vote of ``no'' offers an opportunity to achieve both better Trade Adjustment Assistance and better trade legislation, and your vote ``no'' will also ensure that you are not on record as voting to send a bill to the President, which is exactly what will happen if you vote ``yes,'' that cuts Medicare by $700 billion. Reject this bill, and develop a better alternative that reflects our values and 21st century economic realities. What really needs ``adjusting'' here today is the no compromise, no amendment attitude on trade. This vote wouldn't be so close if this process had not been so closed.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today this Congress can be fast-tracked or it can take the right track. We can seek strong, new trade agreements that benefit American families, or we can continue to backtrack with the failed policies of the past. In the Ways and Means Committee, in the Rules Committee, every attempt to make constructive improvements in this fast-track bill have been sidetracked. First, we ask that the foreign corporations not be given more rights than American corporations and taxpayer funds awarded by some private tribunal. Second, we ask that the Administration, if it is such a good trade deal, that they be open with it. Tell us at least as much as the Vietnamese Politburo learned. Third, I ask that they at least meet the environmental standards of the last Bush administration. In each case, those amendments and all other constructive improvements were rejected. Today, let's not backtrack. Let's not fast-track. Let's vote down this bill and have an opportunity to create a 21st century trade policy that meets the needs of our families and businesses.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Too often, the USTR simply does not believe in law enforcement. It wouldn't enforce the law in Guatemala and Honduras under prior labor agreements. In Peru, it ignored the audit responsibility that it had. We can do better than this. We can do better than some kind of Christmas wish list of multiple objectives that this President doesn't have to follow. And indeed, this Christmas wish list is being proposed for the next President, who has not even been elected--an open-ended ability to have more trade agreements that come at the cost of too many families. We can do better.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only way to get better trade agreements is to reject this fast-track bill and develop a better alternative that reflects our values and the realities of the 21st century. As one who has supported legislation for more trade with most of the countries that are TPP agreement countries, I would like to support more trade today, but, as happened in the Ways and Means Committee, this rule shuts out every single attempt of Democrats to strengthen and improve this bill. These Fast Trackers--they say they want free trade. Well how about trade that is free of secrecy and connivance? How about trade that is free of deals that jeopardize our the health and safety such as the food that we eat as American families? How about trade that is free of corporate panels that will be able to award taxpayer dollars to foreign corporations with more rights than American businesses, instead of relying on our system of justice? I think we have to look at the trade agreements we have had in the past--the free trade agreements--and realize that, for too many American workers, they haven't been free. They have come at a tremendous cost. This trade agreement has been shrouded in secrecy in order to assure there is not a full and fair debate or a discussion of the failures of the USTR. The USTR, as of right now, has not shared with this Congress a single document to show how Vietnam, instead of being the great human rights abuser it is today, will begin to show even the slightest measure of decency to its workers. The USTR has ignored the record of sex trafficking and human trafficking in Malaysia. One of the worst and in a category by itself with North Korea--and a handful of others--in human trafficking. And they are being rewarded in this deal.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. And the panels that will decide them are usually made up of a majority of private lawyers, who one day are litigating cases for multinationals and the next day are deciding these cases. If you agree that foreign investors should not receive greater rights than American investors, if you support local and State decisionmaking to keep our air and water and our environment clean without having to pay foreigners for the privilege of doing so, then there should be great concern about these trade deals that are being fast-tracked this week. We don't have to look far to see the damage that could occur, because only three months ago, in Canada, it happened when a local decision about expanding a quarry in an environmentally sensitive area was challenged successfully. That is an unfortunate decision. We need to be wary of these Fast-Track proposals and insist that they put us on the right track for more trade without jeopardizing the health and safety of Americans. I tried to do that in the Ways and Means Committee, but, like every other amendment to put us on the right track, it was rejected. We need to reject that wrong track approach this week.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, country of origin labeling stands for the proposition that knowledge is power. The more knowledge you have, the better decisions that you can make. This is true about the food that you eat, and it is also true about the trade deals that we are being asked to swallow this week. With Fast Track hurtling down on us for a vote the day after tomorrow, this recent World Trade Organization decision against the United States ought to serve as more than a blinking yellow light. It ought to be viewed as a giant red stoplight. The World Trade Organization ruled that it just isn't ``cool'' to supply consumers more information. And while this decision may not actually overrule our law, what you are seeing today is the possibility--indeed, the probability--of expensive retaliation against American exports unless we yield to this WTO decision. If you support local decisionmaking, you need to consider the significance of our experience at the World Trade Organization. There have previously been some challenges to United States laws just like this, and the record of the United States at the World Trade Organization when it is challenged is not one to be really proud of. We have had 6 wins and 66 losses. These are losses that have been sustained when other countries challenge our laws. Only recently, as my colleague from Connecticut Rosa DeLauro and I attempted to present an amendment to a bill to say that corporate deserters--those that leave our country and renounce their charters here in order to dodge taxes--ought not to be given government business paid for by our taxpayers, we had some organizations who came and said: You can't do that. You can't deny corporate deserters an opportunity to get money from other taxpayers for government work because the World Trade Organization wouldn't like it. So there is already a range of threats being used based on existing trade laws. Consider now what will happen when the number of those who can challenge decisions in this Congress, at the State level, and at the local level is multiplied geometrically because of the fact that now, under an investor-state dispute settlement provision, thousands of foreign corporations can challenge our regulations and our laws. Taxpayers will be exposed to unprecedented amounts of liability because of our decision to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people that we represent. At least the World Trade Organization, the group that decided this case, has an appeal process. There is no such appeal process for these cases that will be brought by foreign corporations.